Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (57314)	10/5/2001 12:01:21 PM
From: fyodor_	Respond to of 275872

Tench: Oh, and don't forget AMD's transition from K75 (Athlon w/ off-chip cache) to Thunderbird. AMD didn't feel the need to come up with an arbitrary naming scheme, even though T-bird performed better clock-for-clock than K75. That's not entirely correct. The 1GHz versions Tbird core did generally perform better than the old 1GHz Athlons, but the difference was minimal (and in some cases even reversed!) for lower frequencies. The reason for this is obvious: The cache on the 1GHz models only ran at (IIRC) 1/3 of the CPU frequency, whereas lower frequency models had the cache running at anywhere from half to two-thirds the CPU frequency. -fyo

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (57314)	10/5/2001 12:11:13 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 275872

"Intel never had this problem when transitioning from Covington (cacheless Celeron) to Mendocino (Celeron w/ cache)." Different circumstances. Mendocino ran at the same speed and more than Covington, not less than the same speed to a little more. "Oh, and don't forget AMD's transition from K75 (Athlon w/ off-chip cache) to Thunderbird. AMD didn't feel the need to come up with an arbitrary naming scheme, even though T-bird performed better clock-for-clock than K75." The performance wasn't that much better at the same clock rate and the Tbirds were cheaper to make. Again, different circumstances. While the Athlon XP will likely eventually clock higher than the Athlons (assuming they have a long enough production life), current Athlons can likely clock as high as the Athlon XPs. While the comparison with Athlons as the excuse might be a smokescreen, it isn't totally clear that it is. If the P4 was it's only concern, then I would expect the model numbers to be higher than they are. A decent argument could be made that a 1.33GHz Athlon XP is considerably faster than a 1.5GHz P4, yet it is only rated as a 1500+. I suspect that a 1.53GHz Athlon XP will give any 2GHz P4 a serious run for it's money, so why didn't they rate it as a 2000+ instead of an 1800?